They may have stood in a heritage district.
But three Cookstown buildings owned by the same developer now lie in ruins after being torn down in recent days. The properties, a residential lot at 7 King St. N. and two commercial buildings at 15 and 17 Queen St., were demolished — likely to make room for new multi-storey commercial buildings sympathetic to the look of the neighbourhood, though the town has yet to receive formal site plan applications.
“Both of those properties, the damage was done to them years ago,” Mayor Lynn Dollin said. “The one on Queen Street was a beautiful, classic brick building with a lovely tin ceiling. The owner purchased it, put in a drop ceiling and covered it in aluminum siding. That was prior to us having any heritage protections. There was so much moisture between the brick and the siding. Those bricks were not salvageable. We want built heritage to be respected. But, in my opinion, those buildings were damaged far before we had a heritage planning process.”
So, how were these protected buildings allowed to be razed? Well, heritage alteration permit requests, which can be submitted for work ranging from renovations to demolition, were handed to the town in July 2021. The Ontario Heritage Act specifies that, once the application is received, council has a 90-day period to render a decision. After that, the request is automatically deemed to be approved.
That council missed that window, opening the door to demolition.
However, the buildings continued to stand and in September 2023 the new term of council approved a request from the Innisfil heritage advisory committee to procure peer reviews of the heritage impact assessments submitted for both sites. At the time, both properties were deemed to have “contextual value” by consultants, meaning they supported the commercial core landscape of downtown Cookstown and were consistent with the guidelines of the Cookstown Heritage Conservation District but did not have any specific design, physical, historical or associative value.
“The heritage district and the guidelines do outline a process for heritage alteration permits to be considered,” town planning and growth director Andria Leigh said. “While the guidelines strongly discourage demolition, they don’t prohibit it. (These buildings) don’t have as much significance ... (but) they still are part of that character.”
The structures at 15 and 17 Queen were built about 75 years apart. The one-storey building at 15 Queen, with its log cabin-style facade, looked like a relic of colonial construction but was built in 1953.
At 17 Queen, consultants found the building likely dated from between 1865 and 1870, but was “subject to significant modification,” both inside and out, in the years since.
The building at 7 King St. N., meanwhile, had long been boarded up. Little is known about the chain of ownership between 1844, when the Crown patent for Lot 1, Concession 1 was granted to John Perry, and 1871, when census records identify Alfred and Mary Ayerst as living on the property. And the main structures that had stood there until recently seemed to date to about 1904, the consultant’s report said, when a fire insurance plan showed a new two-storey wooden building, largely set back from its King frontage. Until 1949, a blacksmith shop was situated on the property, and then it was converted into a service station.
Despite the King home being nearly 120 years old, the consultant found nothing rare or unique about it.
“The property is historically linked to its surroundings as a former blacksmith shop used during the predominant period of development in the (Heritage Conservation District) (1880 to 1919),” the consultant’s report stated. “The two-and-a-half-storey vernacular residence was constructed during the predominant period of development … and is, as such, historically linked to its surroundings.”
Michelle Crombie, who has lived in the area for 40 years, stopped in her tracks last week to watch the demolition on Queen.
“This is ridiculous,” she said. “It’s sad to see. That’s going to break my husband’s heart.”
However, Dollin maintains not everyone in the neighbourhood is upset.
“If we have situations like this in the future, we can do something quicker,” she said, noting the town now has a heritage architect on standby to deal with similar issues. “If we feel they have to be saved, we can do so. But I have to tell you, just from living there and listening to some of the neighbours — one of the neighbours of the one on King Street, she was happy to see it come down … this boarded-up building that had been stagnant. The people who are sad are people like me who remember going grocery shopping at the old grocery store. I was sad to lose what it used to be. But I’m not sad to lose what it has been for the last six to 10 years.
“Big picture, in the long run, it’ll be better for the community and the existing businesses to have a vibrant live-work space in those spaces.”
Leigh said staff will be following up with the developer over its next steps, but she expects site plan applications to be received by the municipality this spring.
“We know through the heritage impact assessments what was essentially proposed in both cases,” Leigh said of potential future development. “Until we see a site plan application, we wouldn’t share that because it’s not confirmed. The intent is not to reuse any of the materials there in either of these cases. But when the (new) building’s being designed, how does it fit with the surrounding buildings and achieve the same character of what was on those sites previously?”
— With files from Patrick Bales
